Last week, Mr. A became the talk of the town. Three years ago, when he was 38 years old, he plied a young girl of 12 with alcohol and had sex with her. He was found guilty of ?unlawful carnal knowledge? and sentenced to three years in jail. However, a ruling by the Supreme Court judged the law under which he was convicted, Section 1.1 of the Criminal Law Act 1935, to be unconstitutional on the basis it did not provide the accused with the defence of mistake on age. This is a provision, known as mens rea, which is guaranteed under Article 40.3.1 of the 1937 Irish Constitution. Mr. A made an appeal to the High Court, and he was duly released. However, it was signalled that he could be back in jail very soon, as the State appealed the decision.

Mr. A acquired this pseudonym because he could not be named in the trial. However, he seems set to become one of these persons that decides the future of a whole government. The case is complicated. In fact, the Supreme Court judgement, which did away with Section 1.1 of the Criminal Law Act 1935, was not directly linked to the case of Mr. A. It involved three young men, aged between 15 and 18, who had had sex with a young girl of 14 in separate occasions in 2001. Two of the youths were convicted of ?unlawful carnal knowledge? while the other one, who was over-18, was charged with unlawful carnal knowledge and sexual assault. They were all charged under Section 1.1 of the 1935 Act. One of the young men accused of ?unlawful carnal knowledge? appealed the judgement to the Supreme Court in 2005, arguing that he was denied the defence of mens rea. Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court judged that he was charged under a law that was unconstitutional.

<B>Guilty to knowledge of girl?s age</B>

Into the breach walked Mr. A. At his trial, he had pleaded guilty to knowledge of the girl?s age. However, once the law was declared void under the 1937 Constitution, he sniffed a way out of jail and waltzed the legal tightrope out into society. However, once the Supreme Court had ruled that the law was unconstitutional, a succession of paedophiles queued up to avail themselves of the opportunity to walk away free from their crimes. Most of them who went to appeal their cases were over forty years old and were sexual predators. Among those illegible for appeal were Michael O?Donnell who had pleaded guilty to 19 counts of sexual assault and ?unlawful carnal knowledge? between 1978 and 1987. In a case that is reminiscent of that of Marie-Anita in Mauritius, he had started to abuse his four-year old sister at the age of 14. The abuse continued till she was 23. Another man who looked to exploit the legal loophole was Simon Murphy, a 53 year old, father of four, who had been convicted on 42 counts of sexual abuse and ?unlawful carnal knowledge? in 2002. His uncle has also been jailed because of paedophilia. Among their victims, was Murphy?s sister who had suffered at the hands of both men.

The other side of the story was the political fallout for the government parties. Despite sporadic warnings from different sources, they had failed to legislate to change the anomaly in the law. First, there was the recommendation from the Law Reform Commission in 1990 for a change in the law to allow those accused of sexual abuse to defend themselves on the grounds that they genuinely did not know the age of the victim. Then in 2002, a state solicitor told the government that a challenge was under way concerning the missing ?mistake as to age? element in the law. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruling says that the law would have to be reviewed and it would give its judgement at a later date. The Irish Times reported the case in the same year. Around the same time, a trainee solicitor wrote an article in the Law Society Gazette saying that this ?signifies a substantial change in Irish law.?

Despite these successive warning signs the government categorically ignored them. Thus, when Mr. A found his freedom this week, they looked like an incompetent bumbling mess. Initially, they tried to downplay the Supreme Court judgement, but the public outcry that followed the release of Mr. A forced them on the back foot. Their lackadaisical approach had enraged the population who let their anger out on the streets with a protest in front of Parliament on Friday. Furthermore, radio phone-ins took the shape of a crucifixion for the government. The opposition piled on the pressure by attacking the ministers in Parliament. They called for an immediate change in the law, a legislation which was crafted and passed in one day.

<B>Breakdown in communication</B>

However, the real problem lay in the way the government tried to spin the news. They tried to claim that they had no knowledge of the case being taken to the Supreme Court. They said it was the remit of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and he had not informed them. As one minister claimed that the attorney general (AG), who sits in cabinet with them, had no prior knowledge of the case, another came out to say the office of the AG actually knew of the case, but not the AG himself. This became their line of defence. A breakdown in communications in the office of the AG. As usual, they blame the public servants.

But it was the public outcry that defined the moment. Not unlike Mauritius, where people often ask for the reintroduction of the death penalty each time a horrific crime happens, here there were calls for castration. It could all end happily, as a new appeal by the government against the High Court ruling could send Mr. A back to his prison cell.

<B>Diren VALAYDEN</B> Outlook Correspondent in Dublin